Rust

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination produces a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics processor in Rust. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings place this pairing near the very bottom of the database, with a combo rank of 2854 out of 2953 tested configurations. The data indicates that while the CPU is a modern, capable six-core part, the GTX 1650’s 4 GB of VRAM and modest compute performance prevent it from achieving playable frame rates at higher resolutions. This analysis examines the benchmark results to explain the roles of each component, how the combo ranks among others, and what settings offer the most viable experience.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Rust?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 66 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the measured data that exceeds 60 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems in Rust?

A: The combination ranks 2854th out of 2953 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 3.4% of all configurations. This indicates that the vast majority of other systems deliver higher performance in this game.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7400F or the GTX 1650 the limiting factor?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck. The CPU has a PassMark single-thread score of 3689 and a multithread score of 25645, while the GPU’s PassMark G3D score is only 7880. The frame rate drops sharply from 1080p to 4K, consistent with a GPU-bound scenario.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded for this system?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 12 FPS, which occurs at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings. This is essentially unplayable for a survival game requiring responsiveness.

Q: Does increasing resolution from 1080p to 1440p significantly impact performance?

A: Yes. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 66 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p, a reduction of 21 FPS. At High settings, the drop is from 37 FPS to 26 FPS, showing a consistent performance penalty.

Q: What is the difference between the CPU and GPU benchmark percentile rankings?

A: The CPU sits in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating it outperforms most processors. The GPU sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it is below average, highlighting the disparity in capability between the two components.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and it offers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. With 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, the GTX 1650 is positioned as an entry-level part, which is reflected in its 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs and an average benchmark score of 7472.

In Rust, the GPU’s limitations are immediately apparent. The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical constraint, as the game’s textures and assets at higher settings likely exceed this amount, forcing the system to manage memory carefully. The benchmark data shows that the GTX 1650 struggles significantly at higher resolutions. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 12 at Ultra to 27 at Low, with even the Low setting failing to reach 30 FPS. This suggests that the GPU’s compute power and memory bandwidth are insufficient for the pixel throughput demanded by 4K rendering.

At 2560x1440, the situation improves but remains challenging. The Low preset yields an average of 45 FPS, while High and Medium produce 26 and 30 FPS, respectively. The Ultra preset drops to 20 FPS. These numbers indicate that the GTX 1650 can handle 1440p only at the lowest settings for a playable experience, and even then, it is close to the edge of acceptable performance. The GPU’s PassMark DirectX 11 score of 58 and DirectX 12 score of 35 suggest that its API-level performance is not optimized for newer workloads, which may contribute to its poor scaling in a modern game like Rust.

The GPU’s compute performance, measured at 3048 in PassMark GPU Compute, is also a factor. Rust’s world simulation and rendering tasks can leverage compute shaders, and the GTX 1650’s limited FP32 throughput means these tasks may take longer, reducing overall frame rates. The nearest rivals to the GTX 1650, such as the Intel Arc A310 with a deltaPct of -1, show that it is barely competitive with other low-end parts, but none of these alternatives offer a significant advantage. The data confirms that the GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck, as the frame rates scale almost linearly with resolution, a classic sign of GPU-bound performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a Zen 4 architecture processor with 6 cores and 12 threads, running at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. It features a 32 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The CPU’s benchmark scores are strong: a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 21765 and a single-core score of 3072, along with a PassMark multithread score of 25645 and a single-thread score of 3689. This puts it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 32750.

In Rust, the CPU’s role is to handle game logic, physics, and entity updates, which are often single-threaded or lightly threaded. The Ryzen 5 7400F’s single-core performance is robust, as indicated by its high Cinebench R23 and PassMark single-thread scores. The nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-14600T with a deltaPct of 0.1 and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 with a deltaPct of 0.3, show that the 7400F is on par with or slightly ahead of these comparable parts. This suggests that the CPU is more than capable of feeding the GTX 1650 with data.

However, the benchmark results show that the CPU’s capability is not the limiting factor in this combo. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 66 FPS, which is a reasonable frame rate, but it drops to 37 FPS at High settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rates to remain relatively stable across different resolutions at the same settings. Instead, the data shows a clear drop from 1080p to 1440p and then to 4K, indicating that the GPU is unable to keep up with the increased rendering load.

The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for Rust’s simulation, and its 65 W TDP suggests it operates efficiently without thermal throttling. The memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s is ample for the game’s data transfer needs. The PassMark data compression score of 289999 and integer math score of 74745 indicate strong general-purpose performance, which is beneficial for the server-side processing Rust requires. In summary, the data shows the Ryzen 5 7400F is a high-performing CPU that is being held back by the GTX 1650, as the frame rate scaling is entirely dependent on resolution and graphics settings rather than CPU load.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2854 out of 2953 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 3.4% of all configurations in the database for Rust. This is a very low ranking, and it indicates that the vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings deliver better performance in this game. The rank reflects the combined effect of the CPU and GPU, but given the CPU’s high percentile (83rd) and the GPU’s low percentile (40th), the ranking is driven almost entirely by the GPU’s shortcomings.

Comparing the components to their nearest rivals helps contextualize the combo’s position. The CPU’s rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-14600T and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, have average benchmark scores within 0.3% of the 7400F, meaning the CPU is not a differentiator. The GPU’s rivals, including the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and the AMD Radeon R7 350, have scores within 0.6% of the GTX 1650, confirming that it is a low-tier part.

The combination of a top-tier CPU with a bottom-tier GPU creates a highly unbalanced system. In Rust, this imbalance means that the system’s performance is limited to what the GTX 1650 can provide, which is minimal at higher settings. The rank of 2854 suggests that users would need to significantly upgrade the GPU to see a meaningful improvement in frame rates. The measured FPS data supports this, as even at 1080p Low, the system only achieves 66 FPS, which is below the 80th percentile of systems. The combo’s rank is a stark indicator that this hardware pairing is not optimized for Rust’s demands.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system’s performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the system achieves its best results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 66, which is the only playable frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium settings reduce the average to 44 FPS, with a minimum of 38 and a maximum of 51, indicating some variance. High settings produce an average of 37 FPS, while Ultra drops to 28 FPS. These numbers show that at 1080p, the system can handle Low settings comfortably, but anything above Medium compromises the experience.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance degrades noticeably. Low settings yield an average of 45 FPS, which is a 21 FPS drop from 1080p. Medium settings average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35. High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra drops to 20 FPS. At this resolution, even Low settings are borderline playable, and the higher presets are not viable for a smooth experience. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across all settings, with an average reduction of about 30-40%.

At 3840x2160, the system is overwhelmed. Low settings produce an average of 27 FPS, which is the best result at this resolution. Medium settings average 18 FPS, with a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 21. High settings average 15 FPS, and Ultra drops to 12 FPS. These frame rates are far below playable thresholds, and the system is clearly not designed for 4K gaming. The data shows a linear decline in performance as resolution increases, which is a classic sign of a GPU-bound system where the rendering load exceeds the GPU’s capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only setting that provides a consistently playable experience is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which averages 66 FPS. This is the only configuration that exceeds 60 FPS, making it the recommended choice for any gameplay that requires smooth motion. At this setting, the system has enough headroom to handle Rust’s unpredictable events, such as combat or resource gathering, without dropping to unplayable levels.

For users who prioritize visual quality over frame rate, 1920x1080 with Medium settings offers an average of 44 FPS, which is still playable but with noticeable stutter in demanding scenes. The minimum FPS of 38 indicates that there are dips, but it remains above the 30 FPS threshold for basic playability. High settings at 1080p average 37 FPS, which is less stable, and Ultra at 28 FPS is not recommended for any serious play.

At 2560x1440, the data suggests that only Low settings are viable, with an average of 45 FPS. This provides a playable experience, but it comes at the cost of visual fidelity. Medium settings at 30 FPS are borderline, and High and Ultra are not recommended. At 3840x2160, no settings produce a playable frame rate, with the best being Low at 27 FPS. The recommendation is to play at 1080p Low for the best balance of performance and stability, with 1080p Medium as a compromise if the user can tolerate occasional frame drops.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals the system’s limited headroom and confirms the GPU as the bottleneck. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 66 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p (a 32% decrease) and then to 27 at 4K (a 59% decrease from 1080p). At Medium settings, the drop is from 44 to 30 to 18, representing decreases of 32% and 59% respectively. High settings see a drop from 37 to 26 to 15, and Ultra from 28 to 20 to 12.

These patterns show a consistent scaling factor, where each resolution step roughly halves the pixel count, and the FPS drops proportionally. This is a clear indicator of a GPU-bound system. The CPU’s performance is independent of resolution, as its workload remains constant regardless of the number of pixels rendered. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain similar across resolutions, but the data shows a clear decline. The GTX 1650’s limited memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s and 4 GB VRAM are insufficient for the higher memory demands of 1440p and 4K, leading to the observed performance collapse.

The limiting component is unequivocally the GPU. The Ryzen 5 7400F has ample single-thread and multi-thread performance to handle Rust’s simulation, but the GTX 1650 cannot render the frames fast enough at higher resolutions. The data suggests that this system is only suitable for 1080p gaming, and even then, only at lower settings. Any attempt to increase resolution results in a disproportionate loss of performance, making the system unsuitable for modern gaming standards beyond entry-level 1080p.